Fifty years ago on June 5 1968, Robert F. Kennedy, younger brother of the murdered president, was shot and killed under circumstances perhaps even more suspicious and bizarre than those surrounding John Kennedy’s murder. No even slightly satisfactory explanation has ever been offered for the glaring anomalies and contradictions in this case. Here Edward Curtin revisits some of the abiding questions surrounding this third politically motivated assassination to impact America in five years, and the legacy it left behind.

Robert Kennedy

Early in 1968, Clyde Tolson, F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover’s deputy and bosom buddy, a key player in the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed both the hope and intent of those making sure that there would never be another president by the name Kennedy, when he said about RFK that “I hope someone shoots and kills the son of a bitch.” Earlier, as reported by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his new book, American Values: Lessons ILearned from My Family, the influential conservative Westbrook Pegler expressed this hope even more depravingly when he wished “that some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter [Robert Kennedy’s] spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

These sick men were not alone. Senator Robert Kennedy was a marked man. And he knew it. That he was nevertheless willing to stand up to the forces of hate and violence that were killing innocents at home and abroad is a testimony to his incredible courage and love of country. To honor such a man requires that we discover and speak the truth about those who killed him. The propaganda that he was killed by a crazed young Arab needs exposure.

When he was assassinated by a bullet to the back of his head on June 5, 1968, not by the accused patsy Sirhan Sirhan, who was standing in front of RFK, but by a conspiracy that clearly implicates U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, not only did a precious and good man die, but so too did any chance for significant political change through the official political system, short of a miracle. We are still waiting for such a miracle.

Robert F. Kennedy’s death, following as it did the assassination by U.S. government forces of Dr. Martin Luther King two months earlier, marked an emphatic end to the sense of hope that marked the election to the presidency of his brother John in 1960. Henceforth, efforts to change the political system from within became moot; the coup d’état effected on November 22, 1963 with the CIA’s assassination of JFK was signed and sealed. RFK’s murder added the period to this sentence of rule by murderous deep state forces. And despite valiant efforts of dissent from outside the system since, the systemic war machine has rolled on and the economic stranglehold of the elites has tightened over the decades. An RFK presidency was this country’s last chance from within to save itself from the tyranny that has ensued.

We now live in a country that would be unrecognizable to anyone who died prior to 1968. All protest has become symbolic as the American Empire has expanded abroad through countless ongoing wars, coups and the undermining of foreign governments; civil liberties have been eviscerated; the wealthy elites, ably assisted by a corrupt political establishment, have made a mockery of economic justice; an endless war on terror and a national emergency engendered by the insider attacks of September 11, 2001 and enshrined in public consciousness with the planted emergency telephonic meme of 9/11 have been instituted to justify massive profits for the military-industrial complex; and a new and very dangerous Cold War with Russia has been resurrected to threaten the world with nuclear annihilation.

All this and more has vigorously been supported by every U.S. President since, Democrats as well as Republicans, with no exceptions, including the icons of the neo-liberals, Clinton and Obama, who have bombed and droned the world wide, smiling all the way. We live in very dark times indeed. If significant change ever comes to the United States, it will be a result of pressures from without, for the political system is rotten to the core, and almost without exception our political leaders are cowards and liars. This seems obviously true to me, though it pains me to admit it.

Fifty years have passed since RFK’s murder, and for those fifty years very few Americans have thought to question what is a conspicuous conspiracy. It is as though a painful exhaustion or a veil of denial set in in 1968, a year in which 536,000 plus American troops were waging war against the Vietnamese and the slaughter was horrendous. Body bags and slaughtered Vietnamese filled the TV screens. Chicago cops rioted and beat antiwar demonstrators at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. American cities were exploding.

Then the “peace candidate” Nixon, together with Kissinger, assumed the mantle of power only to increase the horror. War criminals ruled. It was a year when mere anarchy was loosed upon the world and the truth of Robert Kennedy’s assassination was lost in the storm. The manifest truth became latent, and there it has remained for most people all these years. All most people “know” is that RFK was assassinated by a crazy Arab guy. His name? Oh yeah, Sirhan Sirhan or something like that. It was so long ago and, anyway, it doesn’t matter anymore.

But it does matter greatly. Unless we choose to remain children forever, children in denial of the truth of their childhood traumas, the truth about RFK’s murder will haunt us and poison any hope we still might harbor for our country. Killers seized the levers of power with the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK (and Malcolm X, Thomas Merton, et al.), and they have never relinquished them.

It is time that each of us decide: Do we stand with the killers or their victims?

Finally a Kennedy family member has spoken out on the case. As reported by Tom Jackman in The Washington Post, May 27, 2018, Robert f. Kennedy, Jr., after studying the case at the instigation of Paul Schrade, RFK’s assistant, who was the first person shot that night, and visiting Sirhan in prison, has publicly said that he doesn’t think Sirhan killed his father and has called for a reinvestigation of the case, a most mild request.

Who will do the reinvestigation? The authorities in the government and press that have covered up the truth for fifty years? Nevertheless, Jackman’s article and RFK, Jr.’s statement bring needed attention to the assassination while focusing on the fact of a second gunman and therefore a conspiracy. Its focus is on the ballistics of the case, which are of course crucial.

But I would like to focus on another angle that confirms the fact of a second gunman and a vast cover-up that involves the LAPD, FBI, and CIA, therefore not just asserting the presence of a second gunman, but one in the employ of state forces. So let us look into this brutal murder, with its layers of subterfuge.

Right from the start the conspirators had intricate plans in place just in case questions were asked. Plans to confuse. False leads. Fallback stories. Something far beyond the ken of the 24 year old Sirhan Sirhan. Consider the following questions.

If you were going to arrange a political assassination in an indoor crowded setting, would you have one of your operatives (not the assassin) at the murder site be a strikingly curvaceous young woman in a conspicuous white dress with black polka-dots, and then have her flee the scene, yelling, “We’ve shot him, we’ve shot him,” so that multiple witnesses would see and hear her as she made her escape?

Would you have the same woman earlier in the day pick up a salesman in the hotel where the assassination was planned, spend the day with him driving around and having dinner together, while repeatedly inviting (i.e. luring) him to join her later that night at a big public event where they will shoot their famous victim, whom she names?

Would you have your operative tell this man that, although she wasn’t staying at the hotel, and although she had been in town only three days, having flown from NYC where she had arrived from overseas, that she knew the hotel stair routes very well, including an unobtrusive one that she shows the man?

Would you have this woman tell this man that a few days earlier she had met with a very famous political operative (whom she names), diametrically opposed to your victim’s political philosophy and that she would need to flee the country after the assassination and would like the man’s help?

Would you have this woman be seen by multiple witnesses in the company of Sirhan?

Would you have your operative in the tight dress so conspicuously lay down a trail of breadcrumbs from morning until night, until she made her escape, never to be found despite having been seen by more than a dozen credible witnesses at the shooting site?

I think you would agree that you would have to be extremely stupid to plan an assassination in this manner, except if you were extremely devious, and the voluptuous stand-out girl was part of your intricate plot to create a false lead to someone other than the assassins.

This is exactly what happened when Senator Robert Kennedy, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, was shot shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, after celebrating his victory in the California Democratic Primary. The woman in question came to be known as “the girl in the polka-dot dress,” but unlike the ways we associate girls with innocence, this woman was a key player in hideous evil.

Did the polka-dot girl scream “We shot Senator Kennedy” intentionally as part of some sort of “limited hangout” in a most sophisticated conspiracy? For why would a person involved in the conspiracy run away screaming such words, drawing attention to herself and her fleeing companion, unless it was a diversionary tactic?

[“Limited Hangout” according to Former Special Assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Victor Marchetti, is “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting – sometimes even volunteering – some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”]

While many people are aware that President John Kennedy was killed five years earlier in a conspiracy organized by U.S. intelligence operatives and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the “patsy” that he said he was, far fewer realize that Robert Kennedy was also killed as a result of a conspiracy and that the convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan did not kill RFK. In fact, not one bullet from his gun struck the senator.

Sirhan was standing in front of Kennedy when, as the autopsy definitively showed, RFK was shot from the rear at point blank range, three bullets entering his body, with the fatal head-shot coming upward at a 45 degree angle from 1-3 inches behind his right ear. In addition, an audio recording shows that many more bullets than the eight in Sirhan’s gun were fired in the hotel pantry that night. It was impossible for Sirhan to have killed RFK.

While Sirhan sits in prison to this day, the real killers of Senator Kennedy went free that night. For anyone who studies the case with an impartial eye (see this, this, this, this, and this), the evidence is overwhelming that there was a very sophisticated conspiracy at work, one that continued long after as police, FBI, intelligence agencies, and the legal system covered up the true nature of the crime.

That Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate hypnotized to play his part as seeming assassin is also abundantly clear. Dr. Daniel P. Brown, an Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School, an international expert on hypnosis, affirms the obvious: that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to shoot his pistol in response to a post hypnotic touch cue, most likely from the girl in the polka-dot dress. Dr. Brown states that Sirhan “did not have the knowledge, or intention, to shoot a human being, let alone Senator Kennedy.” At the request of Sirhan’s defense team seeking a new trial and a parole for Sirhan (efforts led by the lawyer William Peppers and the heroic Paul Schrade), Dr. Brown “conducted a forensic assessment in six different two-day sessions over a three year span spending over sixty hours interviewing and testing Sirhan at Corona Penitentiary and Pleasant Valley in California.”

In his declaration to the Parole Board Dr. Brown stated unequivocally that Sirhan was hypnotized and was therefore a “Manchurian Candidate” who did not kill RFK (see the CIA’s programs ARTICHOKE and MKUltra.

One of the sad ironies of RFK’s murder is that he and his family spent the day of the primary at the home of John Frankenheimer, the producer and director of the film, The Manchurian Candidate, and as Kennedy was being shot, Frankenheimer and his wife were waiting outside the Ambassador Hotel in their car to take the Kennedys back to their house.

But it is not my intention here to detail all the facts of the case that still scream out for justice, as do the linked assassinations of JFK and MLK. In fact, referring to the Kennedy assassination is a misnomer; we should speak of the Kennedy assassinations, since JFK wasn’t the only one. There were others.

I would like to focus on the so-called “girl in the polka-dot dress,” and ask you to think along with me as we explore why she was so conspicuous that day and night, and what function she may have served. I know you will agree that it is counterintuitive for her to have behaved the way she did. Counterintuitive for the general public, that is, but not for those who plan assassinations that they can pin on crazed lone gunmen or strange accidents. Being counter-intuitive, however, is not dispositive. More evidence is necessary to make a case, and that evidence is readily available.

The best detailed day-to-day account of this mysterious girl is in a book by Fernando Faura, The Polka-Dot File: on the Robert F. Kennedy Killing. Faura, an old school reporter nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for another series of articles, investigated the case from day one. He rarely speculates. He sticks to giving us the record of his investigation as it happened – transcripts, documents, FBI and LAPD records, his day-to-day itineraries, his doubts, hunches, confirmations, etc. – all in the space of days, weeks, months of the assassination. Therein lies its great value.

Quoting transcripts of his own tape-recorded interviews with key witnesses, as well as police and FBI records, Faura systematically takes us through his investigation from start to finish. Reading it carefully, one cannot but be deeply impressed by his thoroughness and attention to detail. Nor can one not be chagrined by the ways his work was stymied by law enforcement and he was “followed, spied on, and harassed.” It becomes evident that his pursuit of the truth was dangerous.

He writes,

Seconds after the shooting stopped, a young woman in a polka-dot dress ran out of the kitchen, past Sandra Serrano, a Kennedy campaign worker. The woman shouted, ‘We shot him, we shot him.’ Asked who they shot, the woman replied, ‘Kennedy,’ and ran into the morning darkness, never to be found.

Although Serrano was interviewed by Sandy Vanocur of NBC News on live TV at 1:30 AM shortly after the shooting, she – as well as other eyewitnesses to this girl – was browbeaten by the police to retract her story, yet she never did. The police shut down its pursuit of this girl, despite more than a dozen witnesses who saw and heard her. The LAPD officer in charge of the investigation, Lt. Manny Pena, was CIA connected, having worked for U.S. AID and been recently brought back to control the investigation. So too was the brutal interrogator, Sgt. Hank Hernandez, CIA affiliated.

It is obvious that this girl was part of a conspiracy to kill Robert Kennedy and that it is equally obvious that she was meant to stand out, be seen, and to be heard shouting what she did. Why? And it is equally obvious the authorities had no intention of finding her, concluding, amazingly, that she never existed. This becomes laughable after reading Faura’s chapter of his tape recorded interview with John Fahey, the man who picked up, or was picked up, by the girl in the polka-dot dress and who spent the entire day with her.

Logically it follows that she was meant to create false leads, and generate mystery when there was none. Writing of the JFK assassination, Vince Salandria, the eminent and early critic of the government’s false conspiracy story, has recently said something quite appropriate to the RFK case and this girl:

The Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and plainly a coup d’état….President Kennedy was assassinated by our national-security state…

While far fewer people have yet to question the false narrative in the RFK case, when or if they do they will find that the polka-dot girl’s actions and her disappearance could keep them guessing for a long time, and that that guessing will lead away from the obvious and essential truth.

The recently deceased investigative journalist Robert Parry has written about how Richard Nixon sabotaged a possible peace accord in Vietnam in the summer/fall of 1968. This he did through an intermediary, right-wing Republican Chinese émigré Anna Chennault, wife of General Claire Chennault, legendary founder of the Flying Tigers.

Parry explains:

Nixon’s gambit was to have Chennault pass on word to South Vietnamese President Thieu that if he boycotted Johnson’s Paris peace talks – thus derailing the negotiations – Nixon would assure Thieu continued U.S. military support for the war.

This treachery has been confirmed. Having stumbled on Parry’s work in 2014, the reporter Fernando Faura was startled to find himself connecting the girl in the polka-dot dress to Anna Chennault and to Nixon. This was because he remembered that the man, John Fahey, who had spent all day with the girl on June 4, 1968 and dropped her off in the evening at the Ambassador Hotel, had told him that the political operative she had met with three days before the assassination was Anna Chennault.

Faura speculates that perhaps Nixon was therefore connected to RFK’s assassination because he feared that, if Robert Kennedy were to become the Democratic presidential nominee, he would push to end the Vietnam War and would be more likely that anyone else to defeat him in the general election. He speculates that the “peace talks” conspiracy might have been the origin of the Kennedy killing; that the two conspiracies were connected.

But at the same time Faura writes, “Why is the CIA’s shadow all over this?” And since the CIA’s shadow is all over the RFK assassination, we are left to ask if Nixon and the CIA were operating on the same page. Or was it the reverse, that Nixon and the CIA were at odds? Did the CIA remove Nixon from office with Watergate? Could the girl have been used to create a false lead to Nixon? Or was it something else again? Was it simply fortuitous that Sirhan’s Palestinian Arabic origins were emphasized and that his lawyers, who in no way defended him, suggested that he was mad at RFK for supporting the sending of planes to Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel? What were JFK’s and RFK’s positions vis-à- vis Israel and their nuclear weapons? Who was the girl? What country had she come from when she arrived in NYC three days before?

While I could answer many of these questions, I will defer to my readers’ passion for investigating the truth.

For many questions leading hither and yon originate with this girl. And it is obvious that she was meant to do that: to muddy the waters and keep people guessing once they came to realize that Sirhan obviously did not kill RFK. And she “disappeared” as quickly as she “appeared.” And the authorities shut down their investigation and pursuit of her. They denied her existence against all the evidence. Meant to stand out, she was also meant to go out, leaving a trail of questions.

Former Congressman Allard Lowenstein, who was investigating Robert Kennedy’s killing and was also strangely murdered, put it well:

Robert Kennedy’s death, like the President’s, was mourned as an extension of senseless violence; events moved on, and the profound alterations that these deaths…brought in the equation of power in America was perceived as random…. What is odd is not that some people thought it was all random, but that so many intelligent people refused to believe that it might be anything else. Nothing can measure more graphically how limited was the general understanding of what is possible in America.

While such pseudo-innocence prevailed then and is still very widespread, perhaps no one epitomized the twisted mind games played by intelligence agencies more than James Jesus Angleton, the notorious CIA Counterintelligence Chief for so many years, in whose safe were found gruesome photos of Robert Kennedy’s autopsy. Why, one may ask, were those photos there, since Angleton allegedly had no connection to the RFK killing and since Sirhan was said to be the assassin? Was Angleton’s work as CIA liaison with Israel in any way connected?

As I wrote earlier, if one objectively studies the assassination of Senator Kennedy, one cannot but conclude there was a government conspiracy and that Sirhan is not guilty. That much is not particularly complicated, although many people not familiar with the facts of the case may think otherwise.

The mystery girl is another matter. Everything about her has served to hypnotize, first Sirhan, and then those seeking to get to the deeper forces behind this American tragedy.

Robert Kennedy, like his brother John, was a great danger to those virulent forces of war and oppression within his own government, and he died opposing them as a true patriot.

If we wish to honor him, we are obligated to pursue the truth of why he died and why it still matters. No government agency will ever do that for us. Fifty years of silence must be ended, and it up to us.

Like this:

47 Comments

I think that use of the “limited hangout” technique is not limited to reactive use or even if that’s its primary use and it doesn’t have to be so limited. I think there is highly-planned use of extremely generous hangout mixed judiciously with lies to so cleverly misdirect people and 9/11 is a prime example of this highly-planned use. After recently catching, randomly on YouTube, a video of “hero” and “last man out”, William Rodriguez, alleged janitor of the North Tower who rescued “hundreds” and – oh-my-gosh – experienced explosions before the tower went down, the pennies started to drop. Could 9/11 have been a massive hoax where nobody died and people such as the “Jersey widows” and “Bob McIlvaine” are simply actors? It seems extreme (although I’m certainly not the first to suggest it) but there are too many elements of 9/11 that strike me as hoax-like for all those people to have been killed and there’s every reason for the power elite not to want to have them dead. Can you imagine the carryon from relatives and loved ones of 3,000 real dead people?

I believe it was a hoax for all of us, all of us being Dummies 1 and Dummies 2. Dummies 1 are those who swallow the propaganda wholesale while Dummies 2 are those of us who swallow the fake whistleblowers, the fake reasons for targeting people in the buildings, the fake alleged family members of victims, the fake witnesses and the fake dead. The perps must have a blast – when it dawned on me I thought it was hilarious myself.

Questions
Could the PNAC document have been planned years in advance to suck us in?
Could the Pentagon not really have housed those staff that would seem to be a target?
Do we really believe that Richard Grove arranged an extremely important meeting with his ex co-workers in the office from which he was fired to confront his crooked boss and then oh so luckily missed it cos he got caught in traffic?
Do we really believe that April Gallop, rather than take her baby son directly to the childcare centre, went to her office where she was directed to take her child to her desk first before taking him to the childcare centre and then at her desk, when she pressed the button to turn her computer on – lo and behold – a bomb went off, an event she thought must have resulted from her computer action? Do we believe that April with lawyer, William Veale, took Dick Cheney to court where he dismissed her case on frivolous grounds? Do we really believe that?
Do we believe that the question from the Jersey Widows to Kissinger about the Bin Laden family being a client nearly made him fall off his chair? What a ruse, huh?

How they hoaxed us. It seems incredibly elaborate but the basics are quite simple.
—A few grieving family members who agitate so very hard for a commission and ask lots and lots of questions that don’t get answered and sadly fails them – of course.
—Fake witnesses (mixed up with real ones) and fake whistleblowers (perhaps mixed with a couple of real ones) providing reasons to target people in the buildings as well as other fake information suggesting reasons to target them so we’ll tend to discount complete hoax.
—Fake dead. 3,000 fake dead seems an awful lot but it seems it can be done. https://www.scribd.com/doc/55676319/9-11-9-the-Vicsim-Report

Sorry, I didn’t answer your question. I do not know if it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Someone else would have to provide the information to falsify it, however, these are two simple facts that prove that 9/11 was an inside job:

—2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC -7. There is zero possible explanation for free fall acceleration in the collapse of a steel frame building other than controlled demolition and the only other cause under serious consideration, fire, in no shape or form could possibly be responsible for free fall or even for total collapse of a high-rise steel frame building.

—We are shown footage of alleged Flight 175 “melting” into the North tower. This is a physical impossibility according to Newton’s third law of motion which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We know instinctively that, regardless of whether it is the small sedan speeding at 100 miles into a stationary semi-trailer or the inverse, it is the small sedan that will come off worse. It is incontrovertible: planes do not melt into steel frame buildings. The evidence for the three other plane crashes is in no way compelling and in the case of the Shanksville plane it is beyond ludicrous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2_em8G6DJE

Reasoning on from inside job, we would ask the question, did the people in the buildings and planes die? which, in turn, raises the question, would the perpetrators want 3,000 people to die?

I think the answer to the first question is a resounding no except if they wanted those people to die or a large percentage of them. Thus I think the answer to the second question is also no – why would they want those particular 3,000 people dead? Moreover, dealing with relatives and other loved ones of 3,000 dead people would be a complete headache and while the perps will happily send off US soldiers to their deaths in other countries on false pretences and happily be responsible for the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East and elsewhere it just doesn’t seem to fit that they’d cold-bloodedly kill people in the towers, the Pentagon and in the planes. However, I do think it’s possible that a very small number of inconvenient people may have been killed deliberately as a false-flag is a perfect opportunity to do this.

I know virtually nothing about the people who allegedly died but I’m mystified by the death of Barbara Olson, television commentator, and wife of former Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who managed to win Bush the election over Gore by stopping the recount. Olson allegedly received phone calls from Barbara, who was on alleged Flight 77 into the Pentagon, informing him that there were terrorists armed with boxcutters which is how we infer that all the alleged terrorists were armed with boxcutters. However, these phone calls are proven bogus http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-2/. – What happened to her I wonder? Some suggest that she had a makeover done and is actually Olson’s current wife. I think this is ludicrous but the question remains: did she choose to abandon her old life and go live on a Greek Island or similar or was she deliberately killed because she knew things she shouldn’t have or whatever?

The perps would know that regardless of the effectiveness of their Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operations and continuing propaganda that a significant percentage of the population would catch on at some stage to the fact that high-rise steel frame buildings do not crash to the ground because of fire and planes don’t melt into steel frame buildings and that they would also have problems with various other aspects of their story. However, what is very important to them is that all of us – regardless of our beliefs about 19 terrorists being responsible – believe that people died and that is why they provide, just for the people who’ve moved up to the group who recognise 9/11 as an inside job, information suggesting that there were good reasons to target those in the buildings, eg, the people in the Pentagon about to commence auditing of the missing $2.3 trillion from the Pentagon budget announced the day before by Donald Rumsfeld. Of course, for all of us they provided the witnesses of the dead and injured as well as bodies of the dead to show that people died.

I do not have proof that no one died – if anyone does have proof that the 3,000 people did die I am most anxious to acquaint myself with it – however, I think what I present is a very good case for 3,000 not dying. Additionally, there is extremely strong evidence that many of the recent “terror” events have been staged and that the alleged deaths did not happen. It seems that not killing people in false-flags is definitely the preferred modus operandi and one that makes perfect sense.

A falsifiable hypothesis is one which contains within it the definition of how it can be disproved. Every scientific hypothesis is required to be falsifiable. The problem with “people didn’t die” is it’s unfalsifiable, ie it can’t be proved wrong, because any evidence for dying people can be “explained” as fakery. Before accepting any such hypothesis it’s good to consider what could be adduced to disprove it, if the answer is “nothing”, this isn’t a hypothesis it’s a statement of faith.

We have clear evidence people died, in that there are alleged grieving relatives and alleged funerals and alleged bodies. A claim no one died needs to explain this. To do so by simply saying “fake relatives, fake funerals, fake bodies” is unfalsifiable, since anything used to adduce real deaths can also be used to adduce fake ones.

Claims of fakery need evidence FOR fakery, this seems to be entirely absent.

I’ve only just cottoned on to the idea that 3,000 people did not die on 9/11 so I haven’t looked at funerals, etc, however, there’s heaps of very obvious fakery for recent terror events where they have the funerals and all the rest of it, Manchester being a prime example, so funerals mean absolutely zilch in my book. Nothing could be easier to stage than a funeral. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/manchester-bombing.html

Just to make clear, I have no interest in making my case based on claims that this, that or the other could have been faked. It drives me nuts the way those who think we didn’t land on the moon make their case based on the claim that the moon landings could have been faked. I don’t think they could have myself but you can’t make a case based on alleged fakability. I make my case on other things but what I’d say is that the other side cannot make their case based on alleged funerals, etc because they’re easy to stage. I’d say the case for no one dying is very strong even without any reference to any concerns about fakery of death. Once you accept inside job the whole death thing looks very very different.

… which is precisely why the power elite conjured up their fake whistleblowers who put out that certain employees were targeted in the buildings just so those who’d moved up a level to recognising 9/11 as an inside job still thought that everyone died.

I see what you mean – I misunderstood what a falsifiable hypothesis is (obviously). OK so I guess presentation of a case to support no dead would be (with assumption of inside job):
—whatever may look like fakery, vicsims, etc
—lack of evidence of dead being registered in particular ways, eg, previous addresses (there is that apparently)
—that it would seem unlikely that the perpetrators would want to kill the 3,000 people and that they would find having to deal with relatives and other loved ones of the dead highly problematic
—that there is evidence of fake whistleblowers whose purpose seems to be to show that people were targeted for killing (these are addressed to those of us who recognise 9/11 as an inside job).
—that there is evidence for no dead in other “terror” events

I guess you could use Occam’s Razor (my old favourite) and thus still get away with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You can just say that all these things support the hypothesis and leave it up to someone else to come back and say, “Here is clear proof that the people died.”

To my mind, once you assume inside job, the case for actually killing the 3,000 people seems so weak, especially when you have all the evidence of staging and no dead for other events, eg, the Sandy Hook parents, etc

It does not matter much, I am sorry to say. I remember both murders, being a child on the first, but th horror fro grown -ups fell upon me too.
And what do I do today?
I supoort the most rascist and vile movemens in the US with loads od money, they will eventully cause the collapse of the US.

Are you bankrolling the CIA? They don’t really need your money as they are making a fortune from spying on you and everyone else and all Americans are picking up the tab for being surveyed. Furthermore the CIA top brass are running the merchant banks like the Carlyle Group who fund the mass surveillance and they also bankroll the weapons manufacturers. The endless War on Terror is the most ingenious of their criminal get rich quick schemes.

Wow! The government trolls attack big time. This is a testament to the esteem they must hold OffG as a progressive voice. An excellent and informative article. So interesting that even today the trolls throwing the CIA created label of – “conspiracy theory” – show up anywhere and everywhere a discussion either of the Kennedy’s, or MLK’s life, is discussed in alternative media. I suppose this is a testament to how absolutely corrupt the institutions of the ruling powers remain that they fear the consequences of the truth of their deeds even half a century later. Rightfully so I would add.

The gunshot that killed Bobby was fired into the back of his skull from behind at a range of 1 to 1 1/2 INCHES, complete with the powder burns to prove it. Just as the laws of physics had to be contorted by the “magic bullet theory” in his brother’s death, they had to be twisted yet again to maintain that Sirhan Sirhan standing in front of RFK, shot him in the back of the head, at point blank range no less, though no witnesses at the scene testified this was in any way a physical possibility. Of course there is so much more to the lies necessary to frame yet a second patsy.

The truth of all this would of course collapse the government. Which is why the government trolls immediately appear doing their troll dance and trying to take the discussion anywhere but in the direction it inevitably leads. We are ruled by institutions so corrupt and vile in the U.S. that they killed the entire elite progressive leadership of our nation during a five year period when I was still a teenager. Our nation was transformed forever, which was exactly the intention of this internal coup to prevent actual “democracy” from challenging oligarchy.

Our failure to punish this monstrous behavior has given us our subsequent monstrous U.S. led history. Millions slaughtered, tortured, starved around the globe in pursuit of empire that continues to this day. All carried out by two political parties which offer no real difference except for the identity politics question of whether you prefer your regime change wars, invasions, coups, election rigging, assassinations, death squads and torture: “with” or “without” gender specific bathrooms?

This little carnival of the absurd is what we call “democracy” in the U.S. It is not the “democracy” we would have had if JFK, Malcolm, MLK and RFK had not been killed by forces within our own ruling circles, all to insure true progressive change could not take place domestically or internationally in terms of U.S. policies.

I do love how trolls of your type admit that conspiracies litter history (and they are just the ones that have been revealed) but they mysteriously ceased to occur on November 21, 1963. It’s a weird world inside the denialist troll’s programmed ‘mind’.

I fell on the floor laughing when I reached RFK Jr’s book title: American Values …is this satire? RFK Sr was the hawkest of the hawks pushing his brother to invade or bomb Cuba …worse that LeMay. Only the Cubans already had warheads and their SS-20’s were “locked and loaded”. We’d all be dead if this immoral idiot had his way. He was also personally responsible for Operation Mongoose: with all the dirty tricks that entailed. He also unleashed COINTELPRO on the Civil Rights Movement and MLK in person. If we need to give away our self-actualising power on glorification and heroification: why not to Thomas Merton, MLK, and Thich Nhat Hanh who are at least worthy? Better still, find the MLK within and let’s continue the work of “beloved community” building? RFK: he’d set COINTELPRO or nuke us!

No threat to whom? He was a clear and present danger to the Cabal that had him killed: but that is no reason to hagiographise him. But that was not the point of my comment. Whatever one makes of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, neither of them could hold a candle to any of the three alternatives I proposed, if we are going to mythologise and create a virtual history. How close to the brink of Armageddon: or how many plots to overthrow legitimate communist governments, and assassinate their leaders were Merton, MLK, or Thay involved in? What kind of world do we want if we emulate the Kennnedy’s, the sociopathic fake purveyors of peace, instead of the genuine purveyors of peace?

Three of the greatest practitioners of peace and non-violent resistance in history also coincided within the same time frame. All three never actually all met, but they corresponded and cross-fertilised their ideals: if we feel the need to make something mean something …why not that?

The Cuban emigres and the CIA had sworn to kill the brothers for The Bay of Pigs fiasco-and they did. Several notorious Cuban and accomplice CIA operatives were seen in the hotel lobby that night-no doubt there to congratulate Kennedy on his victory.

Bravo, Edward Curtin. Venceremos! It is full-time work defending the truth, and that might actually be the intention. If we are busy skirmishing with foot soldiers, we are distracted from attacking the generals. Judging by the quantity of disinformation [around the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK] still being pumped out by the MSM, then the Establishments must still be vulnerable. And 9/11 may be their most easily attacked Achilles’ Heel.
However, part of me wants to understand their vehemence: why spend so much time and effort attacking truth, defending lies; what price their souls?

I made my case pretty clear, based on Sheldon M Stern. RFK wanted to bomb or invade Cuba, and if he had, the Cuban/Rusian commanders had authority to use their missiles, which were “locked and loaded”. The Russians had managed to get the warheads through the highly illegal blockade, and the dumwit Yanks hadn’t even noticed. So, I apologise for the flippancy of my remark, but not its lack of accuracy. RFK was one of the hawks, according to the ExComm tapes: and if not ‘nuke’, as I flippantly put it, his actions would have amounted to the same.

So, yeah Hugh: defending truth is full-time. RFK was an amoral idiot, not a saint, whose recklessness endangered humanity. Let us remember that everything the Soviets and Cubans did was legal: everything the Kennedy regime did was illegal. Including dropping ‘dummy’ depth charges on a Soviet sub (that just happened to have a nuclear-tipped torpedo) and the U2 overflghts: both of which nearly precipitated WW3 in themselves. Who is attacking truth, defending lies, at the cost of their souls is a matter of perception. If you want to create a counterfactual history, that’s fine by me. Only, please do not attack my personal integrity if I disagree, on a factual basis. That is beneath you.

Yes they were: but it was a pretty low bar for the Kennedys to rise above. To say JFK was the best of his, and subsequent generations is true, its just not actually saying that much. To say he also stood up, and was morally superior to the ‘Unspeakable’ is also true. But these included some of the worst humanity has ever produced, Lemnitzer, Dulles, LeMay etc …which leaves the bar on the ground for anyone with a modicum of moral rectitude to crawl over. What I disagree with is the promotion of reasonable politician into the echelons of the best of us. This is simply not true, and a recursion into authoritarianism too. Which is why I propose we choose from among the best, if we are to get the best returns. Best of all, we don’t externalise and dissipate our energies at all: but internalise and actualise the true engine for human progress …the human spirit?

Which is what Merton, MLK, but particularly Thich Nhat Hanh taught. Will following the way of JFK lead to the liberation of the human spirit? Then perhaps maybe we should choose our heros more wisely?

JFK was pressing the invaders of Palestine to fess up to having WMD and open “dimona” to inspection.
JFK got the chop, and the “lone gunman”, or patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, was murdered by a Jewish gentleman called Jacob Rubenstein, who was associated with Meyer Lansky. The press reported this murderer as “American businessman Jack Ruby”.

LBJ stepped in as president and money and weapons poured into occupied Palestine.

The murderers of Robert F. Kennedy were more careful. Who would benefit from having people think a Palestinian had killed RFK?

I’m sure that Israel approved of JFK’s murder-he also intended during something about that doughty institution, the so-called ‘Federal Reserve’ operation, in reality a consortium of private banks ‘not unfriendly’ to Zionism and its global ambitions. But as ar as I can see their involvement, if at all, was minimal. It was a home-grown operation.

https://www.netgalley.com/catalog/book/141437
The above book by Tim Tate & Brad Johnson appears to be the real deal, and even finds a persona for the polka dot girl – Patricia Elayn Neal (1948-2012). Once again, as in the JFK assassination, there is no mystery, nor has there ever been: both Kennedys threatened the status quo of the Elite Monied Classes who employ the CIA/FBI/Police to suppress anybody who might upset the gravy train. War is a Racket (as Smedley Butler made clear).
The chattering classes have known all this for years and done nothing. Ten years ago, I listened to John Pilger interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org/2008/6/5/democracy_now_special_robert_f_kennedy ).
Pilger was very near RFK and heard several shots fired AFTER Sirhan had been disarmed. Like many other witnesses, he gave his statement to the Police, and never heard from them again, NOT DID PILGER MENTION IT! Amy Goodman completely ignored this rather telling testimony, and changed the subject!!!
No doubt, if one were to ask Noam Chomsky, he would say: Who cares who killed Bobby?
The Unspeakable are all around. The best book to understand our own lifetimes is James Douglass “JFK & The Unspeakable”. When will all the little boys unite and declare that the Emperor is naked?

According to the book Patricia Elayn Neal died from alcoholism in 2012 but in later life was given to pulling out a white polka dot dress from her wardrobe occasionally and simply looking at it! This, coupled with the fact that her photo was selected (out of 12) by every one of seven Ambassador Hotel witnesses as the face most resembling that of the girl in the polka dot dress, surely males it more than likely it was her.

Shame the term anarchy is misused as usual, someone who uses words to make a living should have a deeper understanding of the words used to convey their point, just for the ignorant Anarchy means without chief, no leader no ruler, the corporate dictionary has done its job well.

“…It was a year when mere anarchy was loosed upon the world and the truth of Robert Kennedy’s assassination was lost in the storm…”. I dimly remember 1968 but my recollection was of student riots in London, Paris, and in fact my own school (though not very any over political point, but there was something in the air i.e. we had all seen such scenes on TV). When a political choice is required between Trump and Clinton, then voting for the Anarchist Party seems tempting. Good Old Jeremy Corbyn (who like RFK and Sanders has to tread a dangerous tightrope) is fond of quoting Shelley’s “Masque of Anarchy”: Ye are many, they are few. Is anarchy the only true from of democracy?

I enjoyed a lot of the article but was also disheartened by the misuse you rightly point out. I find it sadly incomplete and lame that what is yearned for in the article and others like it is the paternal and patrician state that is the source of the horror it laments. It is this childish yearning for a saviour that the state so easily milks every election time and in between. Embracing anarchy is growing up. Embracing anarchy is a courageous process that requires we shed our inculcated and carefully sustained need for parental figures who stoke then ameliorate then stoke our fears in endless cycles of exploitation.

Of course there are conspiracies. There always have been. What are we going to do about it?

So what is your point? Clearly the authors point is that the perpetrators had put in place a number of distractions to confuse any observers and this was one that indicates that there was an organized group behind the murder rather than a one person attack by Sirhan Sirhan. I would think this is an important point to make.

Follow OffGuardian via Email

OffG on Twitter

OffG’s editors

About

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages...Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, slandered as 'Putinbots' or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it.